Today’s young people? “Always listless, too fragile to endure the weight of this world and unwilling to fight for their rights”. Or maybe not? The protests of the Generation Z in Nepalperhaps the first great youth revolution of the 21st century, have paid attention to a theme that has so far been debated: free access social media can be considered a fundamental right?
On September 8, young Nepalese arose after the government introduced the blockage of 26 Social Network (including Facebook, Instagram and You Tube), justifying it as a measure to limit access to fake news and hatred messages. Katmandu’s decision, in fact, was perceived as a strong one limitation of freedom of expression within a country already unstable from a geopolitical point of view for several years.
The revolution of the Gen Z has culminated with the buildings of power taken and set fire and the subsequent resignation of the Prime Minister. At this point it would be spontaneous to ask: and all this happened for social networks? But nowadays social media are no longer the simple content archives: they have instead become digital places of political participationas well as platforms where build a shared culture.
Can access to social media be considered a new right? The (contrasting) opinions of the experts
It must be said, however, that at least for the moment this theme has not yet entered the public debate, at least not in the European one, probably for a question of geographical distance: but if this Gen Z Revolution had occurred in a closest country, perhaps more known than Nepal, we would have started talking about social media as an essential tool for their own freedom of expression?
Clearly, to none of this question there is a unique and equal answer for everyone: what happened in Nepal, however, has opened several ideas for reflection on Rights and digital world.
There is already the right to connectionrecognized as fundamental in 2012 In a resolution of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations unanimously approved. The resolutions of the Council, however, are not binding and, among other things, there are important differences between the right of internet access and the right to freely use social media.
In Nepal, for example, access to the network had not been completely limited, but the government had simply blocked the use of some social platforms. In doing so, however, we went to harm the essential nucleus of the right to connection, that is the fundamental and indispensable elements which define the very identity of the law: the possibility of using the Internet to communicate with the rest of the world.
From here the starting point of reflection: should the right to the connection be extended to introduce even a wider right to social media?
In this case, analysts are divided into two categories: on the one hand, there are those who claim that a right to social media cannot be considered as a fundamental right, but at the limit as a privilege or a technological advantage, Since not all populations can freely have it every day.
On the other hand, however, there are those who highlight how social media have become the place par excellence of freedom of expression, access to information and contact with other people. Without access, individuals are in fact excluded from the digital public sphere And consequently, they are deprived of the practical enjoyment of some fundamental rights. In this case, therefore, social networks are no longer considered as a mere technological advantage, but also as a necessary condition for the implementation of their rights.
Social media as a place of political participation and creation of shared culture
In fact, if we think about it, the world has profoundly changed since the first social network was launched in 1997, Six Degrees: social platforms today have evolved and have become a way to communicate but also to create a shared culture.
Just think of the case of flag of the famous anime One Piecewhich we also saw during the protests in Nepal: this skull appeared for the first time in Indonesia, during the protests last July against some impositions of the government, but its use quickly spread globally, reaching the Nepal revolution and the protests in France of the last few weeks. In short, thanks to the images spread on social media, it has become a global cultural symbol to indicate the rebellion of the gen Z against the government.
In the same way, this revolution of Gen Z was carried out by resorting to a typical language of pop culture, with the use of expressions like “Nepo Baby“, used to indicate with contempt for the” children of nepotism “, recommended as children of the powerful. All this happens, even more so, in a country like Nepal, where the under 40s represent about 40% of the total population, which touches 30 million.
Do not forget, then, that social media are also a place to do political activism: immediately after the blockage imposed by the government, young people started using the games platform Discord In order to communicate with each other, first organizing the protests and then to express their opinion on the new interim prime minister. The choice of Gen Z fell on the former president of the Supreme Court, Sushila Karkiwhich a few hours later was actually appointed head of the executive for the next 6 months, demonstrating the importance of social media for the political participation of a country.
